Origin of the M1841 USN Officer’s Sword

[Father V]

This is part 2 of the series and the fourth post. If the moderators wish to reclassify this post as Edged Weapons, I don’t object. I’m more interested in these swords as extensions of uniform regulations more than as edged weapons as such but I understand the moderators have slightly different concerns.

Sources: https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/400834-us-navy-uniform-swords-project-sources/&do=findComment&comment=3104707

 

Preliminaries: https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/401831-origins-of-the-m1830-m1841-and-m1852-naval-officer-sword-preliminaries/&do=findComment&comment=3108329

First Post on the M1830 which is highly influential on the M1841: https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/402133-origins-of-the-m1830-usn-officer’s-sword/

 

As with the M1830, we begin with a discussion of the blade design.

 

BLADE

 

One would think that the surviving illustrations would give the design, but there’s a big problem here in that very few surviving swords follow these illustrations. See the preliminaries post for the illustrations and my theory about 2 different illustrations conforming to the Jan 1, 1846 effective order requiring the sword to be slung instead of in a frog. Since these official illustrations were apparently ignored (only one example is known, Tuite 2004, pg 88, example 3.27), where the heck did the de facto/ actual design come from?

 

There is only one author who had examined enough actual artifacts to form a theory on this, let alone noticing that there was enough commonality in the surviving swords to realize a theory ought to be formed, and that was Peter Tuite in the previously referenced 2004 US Naval Officers: Their Swords and Dirks. His material on the M1841 is mostly pg 88-99, with additional material on pg. 53-54 and “non-regulation” types from pg 54-61. I covered the “non-regulation” version with an eagle head and single acorn finial in the follow-up posts on midshipmen blue cloth caps because there was unmistakable photographic evidence of the use of this sword in period. https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/396291-part-1-gold-lace-charts-midshipmen-photos-and-documentation/ As of this posting, the last 2 posts cover this topic, #6 & 7, so be prepared to scroll down quite a bit. Tuite’s material on that particular design is pg 56-61. I keep putting “regulation” in quotes because Ames established the de facto pattern according to Tuite’s theory and in Tuite’s words “The Ames swords departed significantly from the pattern and became, in fact, the pattern for the 1841 regulations.” Technically, a non-regulation sword became regulation. No one in the Navy appears to have complained about it, or at least no official complaints have so far been found. Customary usage prevails yet again.

 

Before covering the non-regulation regulation sword in more detail, let’s get the other pieces of data out there.

 

Except for the single example 3.27 of a possible actual regulation sword, every sword which Tuite commits to actually being the M1841 is pipe-backed. All of the non-regulation 1841 usage swords in Chapter 2 are also, except 2.72 (which describes as having a “single central fuller” but that’s not what we see in the limited view of the photo) & 2.75 (which he calls a spadroon blade, presumably the P1796 British Infantry Officer’s type but no way to know). Examples he provides in the book are Ames, “London Manufactori”, and unknown. Curiously he doesn’t provide any Horstmann examples despite mentioning them as known sellers of the M1841 on pg. 89 and even saying he would do so on the same page. The closest he comes is example 3.41 (pg 96-97) but there he is clear that the scabbard with the Horstmann plate is a replacement scabbard and so is no proof that Horstmann supplied the actual sword. We supply a rare example below.  He mentions Rodgers making for Hall but doesn’t provide a single example of a sword indisputably made under the new order. When it comes to the overwhelmingly prevalent pipe-back of the surviving M1841’s remember that manufacturers took the lack of detail on the M1830’s illustrations (which seem to have been followed as printed) & regulations to mean they could use whatever blade type they wanted. This is important because the 1841 drawing has a blank handle which manufactures will interpret the same way. More on that in the HILT section.

 

We’ve covered the problems in coming to an actual effective date in the 1841 uniform “regulations” before. See this link again, but instead of scrolling all the way to the bottom, look at the text immediately below the charts: https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/396291-part-1-gold-lace-charts-midshipmen-photos-and-documentation/

To summarize those issues, the date Tuite quotes “19 February 1841” is impossible with Secretary Badger’s signature as the citation to “15. Regulations For The Uniform and Dress of the Navy of the United States, 1841. J & G.S. Gideon Printers” (Tuite, pg 240) has if you check that source, as Badger wasn’t Secretary on that date. If Badger later authorized the previous Secretary’s proposed regulations under his own authority, as is possible at least as far as uniform goes, we have no idea when he actually did that. 1841 was the year of 3 Secretaries of the Navy and there was chaos in the department. What *is* known definitively is that the third Secretary considered the Regulations for Uniform we now have as a settled matter he needed to change in regards to Pursers on 3 Dec 1841, shortly before his annual report dated 4 Dec 1841. 
 

All the swords that he gives measurements for are between 26-30 inches.

2.71 27” (for 3.29-3.33 it’s possible that he means these all are 27” per his archetypal small scale Ames (see below). He isn’t clear)

3.29 no measurement 

3.30 no measurement, only a measurement of the length of the etched designs

3.32 no measurement 

3.33 no measurement

3.34 length 27 1/2”

3.35 length 28” 

3.38 no measurement 

3.39 length 27 1/2”

3.40 length 28 1/2”

3.41 length 28 1/2”

3.42 length 28 5/8

 

Of the non-regulation types in Chapter 2

2.72 length 27 3/4”

2.73 length 30”

2.75 length 27 1/4”

2.76 length 26 1/4”

2.77 length 27”

2.78 length 30”

2.79 length 28 3/4”

2.80 length 28 1/2”

 

Note that only the 1830 Uniform Regulations specified a minimum (26”) and maximum (30”) (see the Preliminaries post) length. 1841 only had a minimum of 26 inches, but by and large, officers didn’t seem to want longer blades even when it was allowed, if such a broad selection of surviving swords means anything. The lack of full length photos isn’t the only deficiency in Tuite’s book as he provides more objective information on so-called non-regulation swords than those that actually reflect the de-facto pattern.

 

There’s one “regulation” sword from Horstmann online which is a sword shared in our very own forum: https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/162181-us-1841-pattern-eagle-head-naval-officer’s-sword/

 

I’m really unsure how to classify this one. It’s almost like one of the 1830 blade types without coming to a flat diamond cross-section at the point. Regardless, the owner gives a blade measurement of 26”. Maybe this is what Tuite meant by “central fuller”? No way to know.

 

Given that we know all the Ames’ types aren’t actually regulation, why should Horstmann make business for Ames? Most of the surviving Horstmann identified swords from this period are a different type of non-regulation sword. I couldn’t find another Horstmann that imitates the de-facto pattern.

 

Now let’s attend to the evidence that Tuite marshals to conclude what the de-facto pattern was based on.

a. An order the Navy Department made with Ames in 1842 which John D. Hamilton referenced in his 1994 book, The Ames Sword Company, pg. 69. Hickox was apparently unaware of this reference in 1983 & 1992. https://archive.org/details/collectorsguidet0000rong/page/68/mode/2up (Internet Archive appears to be fully functional again). As I don’t own the book, but it’s on the way, I’ll post anything relevant as a follow up post.

b. Actual swords he believes were delivered in that 1842 order. One he says is on page 68 of Hamilton’s book and apparently has David Porter’s name on it. That sword doesn’t appear to have a digital footprint. The other is from Richard Williams’ collection and is example 3.29 on pg 90 of Tuite. To my mind the 3.29 and the Porter sword aren’t very likely to be part of the same order since they have different grips and backstraps by Tuite’s description. It is unfortunate in the extreme that Tuite wasn’t able to physically compare them. Since Tuite is seeking to make a point about a de facto pattern, it’s also unfortunate he didn’t include a graphic reconstruction of that pattern, only a text description included below. Since much of the design is graphic in nature it’s really a head scratcher why he didn’t provide graphics, especially of the etchings.

 

My best guess of the elements of this pattern as he intends it is this:

Small Pattern Ames M1841 (pg 54)

BLADE: Pipe backed, acid etched, slightly curved. 27” long & 7/8” wide at the ricasso. Total length of etching 18 1/2”.
Obverse (right side of the blade as held in the hand cutting downwards) etched with “N.P. Ames / Cutler / Springfield” (where each slash indicates a separate line of text as read from top to bottom) and a complete pattern of half-sunburst with cross hatching above (“up”/“top” being towards the point, “down”/“bottom” being nearer the hilt), Company ID, cross-hatching topped with a floral design, a fouled anchor within a floral wreath, a shield and arrow quiver within a floral design, an eagle facing right holding arrows and an olive branch with a banner in its beak which reads Liberty with a half row of 13 stars and a half sunburst above, ending with a long floral design with a flower.

Reverse (left side as held in the hand cutting downwards) etched with half sunburst with cross hatching above, a long floral design with flowers, the etching United States Navy within a name frame along the blade, a liberty cap and arrow quiver within a floral design, an eagle facing right holding 3 arrows and an olive branch with a banner in its beak which reads Liberty  with a half row of 12 stars and a half sunburst above ending in a long floral design 

HILT:

 Grip: 4 1/2” long, ivory carved with a partial sunburst & geometric design, shaped to fit the hand, uses a ferrule with raised ridges & rope-like relief

 Pommel: Eagle head looking up. There is a star on the pommel cap (presumably where the tang is peened though never pictured).

That probably looks like this:

^https://sailor-in-saddle.myshopify.com/products/us-navy-officers-m1841-sword-by-ames

 Back strap: Feathered relief partially down the length

 Knuckle Bow: reverse P

 Guard: At least an obverse, hinged, turned-down oval plate of dimensions 2 1/2” long x 1 15/16” high, asymmetric pattern on surface of 6 oak leaves & 3 acorns. Reverse guard (where present) of same size with pebble-like relief (which he never photographs but is probably like the Horstmann example above).

SCABBARD: reverse topmount has N P Ames/Cutler/Springfield/Mass. raised in relief within a scroll. The limited photos of the scabbard seem to include a button on the obverse of the top mount (for use in a frog), and an anchor on the middle mount.
 

From his website, we have some different views of example 3.40 and further description on the drag mount, “The bottom mount has a variant oak leaf acorn motif with six acorns and ten oak leaves.” https://navalswd.com/about-details-2 Yes, this particular example is for sale, but since he never provides full length photos of regulation swords in his book, I’m left with no choice here. No, he never provides what he considers a standard pattern for the scabbard drag for this to be a variant of it. This was not Ames but a London-produced sword.

 

HILT:

a. Knuckle Bow

 The shape is essentially unchanged from the 1830. To see the full derivation, go to that post. The archetypal Ames pseudo-pattern has bottom foliage only, in contrast to the M1830, though I haven’t seen anyone else notice that in writing. There are minor variations in shape in the surviving examples.

b. Quillons. Exactly the same as the M1830.

c. Eagle motif. Retained on pommel though more variations in actual eagle design can be identified. F.W. Widmann died in April 1848 and his business was sold to Horstmann but even before, he possibly had a working relationship with Horstmann since up until the business was bought, Horstmann didn’t have the ability to manufacture swords. They only sold swords others made. Even Widmann only hilted swords whose blades were made elsewhere (especially Solingen) but his eagles have some identifiable features. The full feathered backstrap wasn’t retained even in the official illustration, going only about halfway down. As I’ve said earlier, “blank” on the illustration wasn’t taken before as mandating a particular construction of blade. Though there are plain flat blades, there were also fullered and pipebacked blades used so long as they could nominally cut and thrust. Likewise with the eagle motif in carved feathers. The lack of pattern wasn’t interpreted to mean plain smooth ivory (the only smooth ivory hilt in Tuite’s book is an M1830 by etched patterns, example 3.4 pg 72). Therefore manufacturers were free to pick feathers or any other design and they did. Effectively, this meant that feathers became a very fringe choice as it was more labor intensive if carved in 3 dimensions. Example 3.27, the only surviving actual illustrated pattern exemplar has feathers and the tell-tale lack of a circle of stars of the illustration as well as top & bottom foliage on the knuckle bow. The lack of those stars and the fouled anchors’ lines conforming to the pattern on both scabbard and blade to me make it far too deliberate to be an accident. Although Tuite says it “probably post-dates 1841” (pg 88), I really think must be reckoned as conforming to the illustration and thus either 1841 itself or post 1841.

 d. Grip. Unlike the 1830 regs, 1841 mandated white as the color for all officers. In practice this meant ivory still and so there was little change in material. Of the patterns discovered so far, there are feathers, diamond shaped repeating pattern (example 3.29 & one other seen by Tuite), line art with a bordered pattern on top & bottom (most of these are the Ames “sunburst” type and correspond to the Horstmann example above) but there’s also a non-sunburst like 3.40 (reverse pictured from Tuite’s website)

There might be more, but I never count anything that writers classify as “presentation” as those were never required to follow any pattern. Only where they confirm something already well established do I mention them at all. The use of the ferrule was also more consistent in the surviving M1841’s, though not included in the official illustration for M1830 or M1841. 
e. Folding guard. There are more variations from the illustrated pattern. Even for Ames, Tuite identifies 2 types, but the photos show a third. First is three small acorns, second is two large acorns with a third empty stalk/ husk where an acorn has dropped, third is a standard 2 acorns with 2 leaves just slightly smaller than acorn and husk together, in fact on the 3.29 example that’s supposed to be in the 1842 Navy Department purchase. This was a pattern used at least once by Ames in the M1830 example 3.16 pg 80. Oddly, that’s the only Ames M1830 shown in the book, so I’m not sure if that was their usual 2 acorn art. In general, 3 distinct acorns with very similar size & design is not found on the M1830, only on the M1841, and that appears to be mostly the case for the 2 acorn with 3rd empty husk/stalk.

SCABBARD

We have the least amount of information on this because it’s definitely an afterthought for Tuite. Even for the example 3.27 that corresponds in the blade and hilt, the scabbard is not to pattern. 3.32 has an interesting variation in raised motifs and an anchor stud/button. Fortunately there are some digital images.

 

^https://live.amoskeagauction.com/lot-details/index/catalog/84/lot/45630/Fine-Early-Large-Scale-Model-1841-Naval-Officers-Sword-by-Ames
Looks like 6 acorns and maybe 3 pairs of leaves:

This one also has an atypical false edge section but still not as dramatic as the French or British pipebacks.

Smithsonian’s

^https://www.si.edu/object/np-ames-cutler-model-1841-navy-officers-sword:nmah_438684

The more I see, the less conformity I can detect.

 

I may attempt to reconstruct the sword etching with images from here: https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/68/157/fine-np-ames-us-navy-eagle-head-model-1841-officers-sword-wi but that’s 28” blade and so may not be typical and the Smithsonian only has very long shots on theirs. I’ll see what happens when the Ames book comes in, but I’m not terribly hopeful. Although I have started collecting some swords for the part 3 M1852 post, M1841 Ames in good condition command a premium. Not sure it’s really worth it.

[Father V]

Let’s get in a follow up post before the turn of the New Year. I’ll go in the same design order as the main post.

 

BLADE

Width:

Tuite provides less information on this, but what he has on the M1841 can be usefully collated. 
2.71 Width 7/8”

3.29 Width 1 1/8”

3.30 no measurement 

3.32 no measurement

3.33 no measurement

3.34 no measurement

3.35 Width 15/16”

3.38 no measurement

3.39 Width 1”

3.40 Width 15/16”

3.41 Width 7/8”

3.42 Width 1 1/8”

 

Tuite lists another on his website #54 at 1 1/8” wide https://navalswd.com/about-details-2

 

-Spadroon 

At the time of the original posting, I hadn’t found a digital footprint for such a blade, but have since discovered one on a restoration site:

^https://meaneymilitaria.com

I think it’s most likely to be an 1841 instead of 1830, since it has bottom foliage only on the knuckle bow, the diamond pattern on the grip, and no distinct 1830 graphic motifs etched. While the classic British spadroon as embodied in the 1796 British Infantry Officer’s sword was technically cut & thrust, it’s not generally considered good in the cut, or so Matt Eastman says on one of his videos (probably more than 1), and of course it isn’t slightly curved.

 

-Admiral Porter’s M1841 etched with his name.

It seems quite likely that the sword, pictured in part in Hamilton’s book, is currently at the National Civil War Naval Museum. https://portcolumbus.pastperfectonline.com/webobject/9B0D9384-719F-47A9-95F3-421412982200 , though the person I’ve put an inquiry in through is out of the office until 2025. Here’s the evidence as it stands:

^Hamilton, pg 68. Note that although the reprint is dated later, except for some color photos, it’s all the 1983 book. Note the missing piece of ivory on the front which would clinch the identification in addition to the crack marks. That view of the obverse isn’t available on the views at the museum.

^the museum’s sword. Photo obviously is theirs.

 

The etched name:

^Digitally filtered to bring out details. “David D. Porter” 

 

I’ll post more on this when they get back to me. See further below for more name etchings. As far as I can tell, the name etchings where they exist seem to be on the reverse. The few we have of the original M1852 are on the obverse. More on that in the forthcoming M1852 post.

 

-Standard etching decoration pattern on the non-regulation regulation Ames

The Smithsonian has a remarkably preserved example. https://www.si.edu/object/npames-cutler-navy-officers-sword:nmah_458115
Nevertheless, the long-shot photos don’t zoom well enough to get everything clearly. I’ve put in an inquiry with the museum, but I’m very much the low man on the totem pole there, not being a professional nor publishing with a deadline, so I will wait until they have time. The staff member who usually helps me also informed me that the procedure around retrieving things from the vault has been changed and that will delay things further.

 

HILT

Since I rely so heavily upon Tuite’s book, I’ve been reluctant to post more photos beyond what was included in the M1830 post, so it’s taken me awhile to accumulate photographic examples similar to his to display here under fair use.

 

d. Grip

 

For the standard design of carving, it occurs to me that I didn’t include the derivation of this. From the time of the British military adopting ivory in their grips sometime in the 18th century, various patterns were found carved into it. Sometimes it was something utilitarian like the wire grip already shown in the RN 1825 illustrations, but some were as artistic as utilitarian such as lengthwise lines,

^https://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/bulletin/characteristics-of-u-s-naval-officers-swords/

 

Of importance for the Ames standard pattern is a presentation sword (yeah, I know) that we can date with some certainty since the date was retained in the inscription: https://www.bonhams.com/auction/28117/lot/137/major-jj-earle-9th-regiment-new-york-state-artillery-eagle-pommel-presentation-sword-and-scabbard/

This is not identical to the later sunburst pattern, but neither is it too far off. As always with one-off examples like this, I’m not arguing that the two are directly related, only that these sorts of ideas were already out there. There’s more motivation for artistic carving in a white medium such a ivory than dark media such as French officer grip designs, such as ebony. (From https://www.waterloomilitaria.com/)

 

In terms of patterns, the diamond repeating pattern hasn’t been shown yet, so here are two examples:

^https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/parts-ammo-accessories/edged-weapons-post-1900/1841-ames-navel-officer-s-eagle-head-saber.cfm?gun_id=100746612 It’s 28” long, by the way.

 

There’s an odd example from another sword with an etched identification of the original officer as well:

^Item is currently for sale, so I won’t directly link it, but as you can see the site on the photo, if you’re really interested, it wouldn’t be hard to find. The oddity here is that the diamond pattern isn’t completely uniform throughout the carved surface.

 

Here’s the etched name:

 

Since we have two, I’d better put Tuite’s example in:

^Tuite pg 90. Example 3.29. (Image slightly distorted due to hand-taken photo of a printed page)

 

Note that there are 3 etchings and 3different styles of artistic elements in the etching around the name, each of these swords has a different grip carving, and 2 even have different acorn & live oak pattern on the fold-down guard (3.29 is the rare Ames two acorn type. Another example later in this post).

If any or all of these swords were included in the 1842 purchase, then the Navy must have not required Ames to give them the same style sword or allowed the officers to go down to Ames and customize it before receiving it, or perhaps some other explanation. Regardless, it’s not at all certain which of these if any were the template. Only Porter’s example actually has the standard grip carving. Hard to draw too many conclusions with so few commonalities.

 

Note that there is at least one example of a name etching in an M1830, the Percival Drayton sword (Tuite 3.17) but also studied by the late Kevin Hoffman (see citation below). Unlike the M1841 examples, it’s utterly utilitarian:

 

 

e. Folding guard

When it came to the known Ames designs on the obverse guard, we hadn’t before this follow up seen the rare 2 acorn style. The Bissell sword actually is 2 acorn, as this particular photo from the late Kevin Hoffman’s defunct online book, Swords of Honor and Regulation (2011 edition) shows:

Some of the other digital photos make the cupped leaves next to the acorns look more like acorns than leaves, but here it’s clearer. The 3 small acorns has been shown in the first example in d. and the two acorns with one empty husk is identical to the design used in the Horstmann example in the original post.